|
Simon Hughes: I accept that.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Wrexham asked whether the contents of alibi notices could be used in evidence. The answer is yes, although it is noteworthy that that is hedged around with a number of complicated restrictions, which I do not have time to allude to during an intervention. It is not a straightforward matter.
Simon Hughes: That information is gratefully received. It obviously does not happen often, as no one in the room has ever seen an instance. I indicated earlier that there was a league table of matters of importance in the area of disclosure—we still need to address some of the issues that recur in drafting. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Continuing duty of prosecutor to disclose
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Hughes: I have a question for the Minister. The proposal is that a new section 7A be inserted in the 1996 Act. It concerns the perfectly reasonable continuing duty of the prosecution to serve notice on the defence and the obligation to do so as soon as is reasonably practical. The one question that was raised in the consultation process that has not been answered is: why does it not also include material that comes into the hands of the police, which might not have got as far as the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service? The Minister will understand the point. A lot of material is collected and continues to be collected. That might well carry on after the decision to prosecute has been taken by the CPS and can continue up to the door of the court and subsequently. In a long trial, that is what happens. The police are sent by the CPS to hunt for additional information. It seems that it was suggested that it was a weakness of the original proposal that it was not covered by the same safeguard, and that it should be. Can the Minister give the Committee some reassurance, or will he consider resolving the issue by tabling an amendment at a later stage?
Hilary Benn: I can answer the hon. Gentleman. The material collected by the police is covered by the obligation to disclose.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Application by defence for disclosure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Hughes: I have one question for the Minister. My understanding is that the clause, which has to do with an application by the defence for further disclosure from the prosecution, has a precondition
Column Number: 263
that the defence statement must be served first. It has been put to me that if the defence have concerns that the initial case has not been fully disclosed, they are obliged to serve their statement before the prosecution have revealed their hand. Is there a way of resolving the question whether the prosecution have to reveal their hand to the full? What sanction can be applied if the prosecution have not, either advertently or inadvertently, made full disclosure? I give one practical example. It is often the case that the defence are aware that someone has been interviewed yet they do not see a statement in the bundle. They might ask the police or the CPS, ''What about it?'' The answer might be, ''We know nothing about it''. As far as such bodies are concerned, the witness might be significant. In those cases, how can the defence's interests be properly looked after, and what sanction can they employ to ensure that they see everything before they have to serve their statement?
Hilary Benn: I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I undertake to consider it, and to write to him if that is helpful.
Simon Hughes: I am grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Faults in defence disclosure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 264
Simon Hughes: I did not move amendment No. 194 because I thought that it might be defective. It referred to both comment and inferences. The amendment was inadequate, as it was designed to improve the proposed new clause 11(6) of the 1996 Act, which refers back to proposed new clause 11(5) of that Act, which breaks the matter down.
My understanding is that under the provisions the leave of the court would no longer be required for comments to be made or for adverse inferences to be drawn in certain circumstances. Must the leave of the court be sought, so that the seeking of an adverse inference always requires judicial sanction? I hope that that is the intention, and assurance of that would be helpful.
Hilary Benn: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that leave would be required in relation to witness notices. I hope that that is helpful.
Simon Hughes: I will reflect on the answer.
Hilary Benn: So will I.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Six o'clock till Tuesday 14 January at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee
Illsley, Mr. Eric (Chairman)
Allen, Mr.
Baird, Vera.
Benn, Hilary
Cameron, Mr.
Clappison, Mr.
Clark, Paul
Francois, Mr.
Grieve, Mr.
Harman, Ms
Heath, Mr.
Heppell, Mr.
Hughes, Simon
Humble, Mrs.
Kidney, Mr.
Lucas, Ian
Mann, John
Simmonds, Mr.
Stinchcombe, Mr.
Taylor, Ms
Turner, Dr.
| 
